OK, enough with the names and the links, already. I include them all not out of any desire to be encyclopedic in my coverage, but rather to increase the hits that my blog gets from search engines. More names and links means more page views, and more page views means a greater audience, and a greater audience means more validation for my worth as a human being. It's the little things, really.

Anyway, now for the catty bitchery. Take a look at the logo for A Catered Affair. (See jpg above.) Could it be more dull? White background with gold, italic lettering: Yipee. It's certainly simple, but does it make you want to see the show? I mean, I'll see it anyway, but the logo certainly doesn't create any positive brand associations, if you'll pardon my marketing speak.

I'm not positive that this is the final design, but it's what BroadwayWorld.com included as accompanying art when it wrote about Harvey Fierstein's blog for the show. But it did get me thinking about the importance of branding, specifically logo design, to the marketing and ultimate success of a Broadway musical. There's no direct correlation, of course.

Bad shows can have good logos:

Bad shows can have bad logos:

Good shows can have good logos:

Good shows can have bad logos:

But good, strong, clear design can go a long way towards creating awareness for a show. And awareness translates into ticket sales. If the producers of A Catered Affair decide to go with the bland logo pictured above, then they can only hope that good word of mouth and great reviews will help make up for a forgettable visual identity.

August 30, 2007

The Tony-winning musical Spring Awakening has recouped its initial $6 million investment, according to Variety. The show had been limping along for months before it won eight Tony Awards, including one for "best musical." Suddenly the show is playing to sold-out houses and currently boasts an advanced sale of nearly $4 million.

As the show continues in the black on Broadway, its producers have recently announced that Spring Awakening will begin a national tour in the fall of 2008. (Why the wait? Perhaps director Michael Mayer is otherwise engaged until then.) Its first stop will be the venerable Curran Theater in San Francisco. There's also talk of a London production, as well as ones in Germany, Japan, Austria, and the Netherlands.

I must say that I've very glad for Spring Awakening's success. As I said in my review, I found the show raw, compelling, and stunningly theatrical. But the bitter, nasty, dried-up, smelly old theater queen in me can't help grumble that the show's good fortune comes at the expense of my beloved Grey Gardens, which closed last month despite winning three Tony Awards, including "best actress" for Christine Ebersole and "best supporting actress" for Mary Louise Wilson.

The Tony voters seemed to be making a statement rather than distributing awards based on actual merit. What might that statement be? Something about welcoming new voices to Broadway, perhaps? Or the desire to attract a younger demographic to ensure the future viability of live theater? Whatever.

But the whole Tony affair reminded me of when The Producersquite undeservedly won a record-breaking 14 Tony Awards, seemingly because the voters simply wanted to break the record. I mean, best lighting? Best costumes? Best sets? These aspects of that show were ordinary at best. And it all came at the expense of another worthy show that got lost in the shuffle: The Full Monty. In another season, The Full Monty might have been the show to see. But because it had the misfortune of being overshadowed by its over-hyped neighbor, it closed after a relatively meager 770 performances, compared to 2502 for The Producers.

My God. How did I get here from Spring Awakening? Talk about your ADD moments. Well, as I often say, my life is an open parenthesis.

Every year, when my Boston Conservatory students write about "the most underrated musical," Children of Eden invariably ends up in the mix of papers. The show certainly has its share of ardent supporters, but then so do the shows listed above. The upcoming Broadway production will feature direction by Scott Schwartz, composer/lyricist Stephen Schwartz's son, and a respected and successful professional in his own right. And coming on the heels of the elder Schwartz's insanely successful Wicked, the timing couldn't be better for Children of Eden on Broadway.

Readers may recall Javier Bardem from his breakout movie role in "Before Night Falls," a terrific film, otherwise notable for Johnny Depp's dual role as a sadistic prison guard and a drag queen. Bardem is not only one hell of an actor, but he's also easy on the eyes. Extremely easy on the eyes. (See poster below) Can he sing? I really don't know, but Raul Julia wasn't all that much of a singer, quite consistently going flat on the original Broadway cast recording.

There's been quite a lot of cyber-chatter about who could be playing the female roles in the movie, including the following possibilities:

Some very intriguing choices, the age-defying Sophia Loren most of all. Loren isn't known for her musical roles, although she did infamously play Aldonza in the wretchedly, painfully, horribly bad movie version of "Man of La Mancha." Catherine Zeta-Jones, of course, won an Oscar for her overrated turn in Rob Marshall's "Chicago." The Claudia role is significantly more subdued than that of Velma Kelly, and Zeta-Jones will have her work cut out for her making the part memorable.

I must confess that, although I'm familiar with Penelope Cruz by name, I can't recall ever seeing a movie she was in. Carla is a very demanding role, and I'd be interested in hearing whether any readers out there think Cruz can pull it off. I had never heard of Marion Cotillard before reading that she was attached to this movie, but I understand she's making quite a splash as Edith Piaf in the new movie "La Môme."

The movie will apparently start shooting in the spring with a planned release of late 2008.

August 22, 2007

Even before the shortlived High Fidelity opened on Broadway last December, the producers of Elton John's smash hit Billy Elliot announced that the show would be coming the the Imperial Theater sometime in 2008. (Word had evidently got around that High Fidelity would not be long for this world.) Now they've announced that Billy Elliot will aim specifically for a September 2008 opening.

Regular readers will likely recall my opinion of Billy Elliot when saw it in London last summer. In short: it stinks. It wasn't that I had minor reservations. I just plain hated it. I found very little to enjoy in the show, either in the plodding book or the lifeless score. (See my review for more specific gripes and groans.) I understand that the show is going to undergo a pretty extensive reworking prior to its Broadway bow, but from what I gather that's to make the show more accessible to Americans.

Will I see it again on Broadway? I certainly won't be in any hurry. It will depend on what else there is to see at that time. I have no plans or desire to see Mary Poppins again, another show I saw and disliked rather intensely on my recent London jaunt. But if I start hearing good things about what the creators have changed about Billy Elliot, I might be willing to give it another try. If only to confirm that I wasn't just dyspeptic and cranky on that warm night last August at the Victoria Palace Theater.

August 15, 2007

There's certainly no shortage of classic and not-so-classic movies making their way to the musical stage. Coming soon to a theater near you: Dirty Dancing: The Classic Story on Stage, which will launch a national tour in Chicago this September.

The show began with a lucrative run in Australia, then piled up a record-breaking advanced sale of £12 million (about $24 million) in London, where it's still running, despite what I can only charitably call mixed reviews. The show will open in for a sit-down engagement in Toronto in November, and there are also productions planned for or running in Germany and the Netherlands.

Notice what's missing from these announcements: any talk of a Broadway engagement. Don't look for it to happen any time soon, because the show would likely be laughed out of town, and the producers seem to know this. Of course, Broadway has seen its share of cynically compiled, irredeemable dreck (Good Vibrations, All Shook Up) and misbegotten movie adaptations (High Fidelity). But Broadway has yet to sink as low as London in this respect, which seems to have a far greater tolerance for high-grossing, long-running schlock (We Will Rock You, Fame, Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story, Footloose).

I have no end of contempt for Dirty Dancing, but not for the reason that many decry the show. Yes, it's not really a musical, in the classic sense. The characters don't sing, they just act out the screenplay; there's a band that performs the songs from the movie soundtrack.

But that's not what bothers me. As far as I'm concerned, a musical is anything that the creators say is a musical. So, yes, Jersey Boys, Movin' Out, and even Contact are all musicals. The question is, are they good musicals? Do they have artistic ambitions beyond merely transporting carbon copies from one medium to the next?

And here's where Dirty Dancing falls short. There's not a shred of creativity involved in the process. It reminds me of a certain community theater that I used to work with on the south shore of Boston, which will remain nameless, but anyone who knows me can probably guess which one it is. Their idea of creativity when it comes to producing a musical is slavishly aping the movie version or taking copious notes at the latest Broadway revival. There's another Boston-area theater that regularly rents the Broadway sets and costumes, and even brings in replacement cast members or understudies, from recently closed New York shows.

All of this is lucrative but artistically bankrupt. Yeah, it gives some locals a chance to experience, from both sides of the footlights, a bit of Broadway magic. And Dirty Dancing allows aging Boomers and teenage hoodsies the chance to see something familiar and unchallenging on a professional stage. But to pretend it has anything to do with artistry is arrogant in the extreme.

August 13, 2007

It appears that the demise of Footlight Records was greatly exaggerated. The venerable retail store is still, alas, a fond memory. But the Web site lives on: based on the outpouring of orders that Footlight received after the owners announced it was closing, they've decided to stay in business, albeit with a somewhat narrower focus and modified inventory policy.

It's all too easy to make purchasing decisions based on price. I do it myself all the time: when I find out about a particular release, I poke around to all my usual online haunts to find the best deal. But when Footlight announced it was closing, I realized what a tremendous loss this would be for me, and for theater queens everywhere. Nowhere else on the Web can showtune fanatics such as we find such a reliable source of offbeat and obscure titles. Sure, we can find the latest big-name release practically anywhere. But where else can we easily come across Grab Me a Gondola, or the much-delayed studio recording of the Broadway flop Anna Karenina? Both titles are available on Amazon, but you sort of need to know that they're there before you'd ever come across them.

My background in business journalism has, in many respects, made me a big proponent of free-market capitalism. But here's where I draw the line: Footlight may not have the best prices, but they perform the invaluable service of selecting and presenting the music I'm looking for, and they usually deliver it faster than Amazon (unless you pay extra for expedited shipping).

So the next time you're looking for a cast recording, why not surf over to Footlight.com? Sure, you might save a buck or two somewhere else, but you'll be helping to preserve a very valuable resource. Don't think of it as corporate Welfare: it's really a very selfish act. You're helping to make sure that the next time you're looking for something unusual, such as the original 45 of the numbers that they added to Hello, Dolly!when Ethel Merman took over, or the Australian cast of A Bunch of Ratbags, that there's someplace you're going to be able to look for them.

August 08, 2007

Theater queens are an opinionated bunch. (I know, you're shocked.)
And we're quite vociferous about those opinions. Anyone expressing a view different from ours is automatically suspect, and quite
possibly dangerous.

So it is with a due sense of hesitation that I announce that I'm actually excited about the proposed movie version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Sunset Boulevard. I'm a huge fan of this wildly uneven show. It's certainly the best thing Lloyd Webber has done since Evita, although the bar is admittedly not all that high. The score is lush and moving; the songs "With One Look" and "As if We Never Said Goodbye" are two of the best that ALW has crafted. There's waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much recitative, and some of the lyrics are clunky. But on the whole, the show is haunting and heartfelt, and I certainly find that I listen to the London CD more than those of any of ALW's other more recent shows.

I was stunned, as many were, when ALW dumped Patti Lupone for Glenn Close, but I still wanted to see the show. Then I heard the excruciating Los Angeles cast album and decided to wait until the vocally dreadful Close left the show. I was looking forward to seeing Betty Buckley play the role, only to find out that Karen Mason would be subbing for her at that particular performance at the Minskoff. Mason kicked major amounts of ass, so I was hardly disappointed.

As much as I worship Meryl Streep, I can't help hoping that Barbra will land the role. It's complicated for me, because I can't stand any movie that Barbra has done since "What's Up, Doc?" in 1972. But given the right director (i.e. anyone but herself), I think Barbra could be amazing. She's certainly got the pipes for the role, unlike Glenn Close. And I must begrudgingly admit that Barbra can be quite a talented actress, when she has a good director who can reign in her excesses and self-indulgence.

If, somehow, she winds up starring and directing, well, all bets are off, as they say.

August 03, 2007

Adam Pascal and Anthony Rapp have returned to the roles that they originated in Rent for six weeks this summer. Eleven years on, are these guys looking a bit long in the tooth for the roles? Here are some recent photos of Rapp and Pascal. You be the judge. I'll just say this: pay particular attention to the photos in which they pose with the other current cast members. "Grandpa, what was it like when you were on Broadway?"

Do you call it stunt casting when you're bringing back the original
stars? Well, if you define stunt casting as an attempt to increase box
office by bringing in a name, then I guess you do. The question is, how
well will it work? This reminds me of when Barry and Fran Weissler brought back Bebe Neuwirth to Chicago, but this time as Roxie Hart rather than Velma Kelly, which I think was moderately effective, although certainly not the box-office boon that was the Broadway debut of hip-hop star Usher.

Isn't it insane how long Rent has lasted? I mean, it's a good show, don't get me wrong. A very good show. But it's racked up more than 4,600 performances, making it the seventh-longest-running show in Broadway history. And it's brought in more than $250 million in gross sales. That's a quarter of a billion dollars, folks. Sure, it's been playing to half-empty houses quite a bit over them past few months, but it does manage a week here or there when it takes in more than $400,000, which is still pretty frickin' good.

I saw Rent the night before it opened on Broadway, and it was one of the most electrifying nights I've ever had in the theater. Part of the power of the show for me was that my boyfriend at the time was HIV-positive, and by the time Collins sang the powerfully dramatic reprise of "I'll Cover You," I was a great big wet sloppy mess. Over the years I've come to recognize the flaws in the show, but overall it's great theater, an important theatrical milestone, and a terrific roller-coaster ride of emotion.

So I hope the show keeps on running, exposing a new generation of theater goers to the sadly lost genius that was Jonathan Larson.

August 02, 2007

The theater sites have been abuzz with news about the on-again/off-again Broadway revival of Pal Joey. At one time, Hugh Jackman was reportedly interested in the role. Then it was announced that Tony winner Christian Hoff would star, under the direction of Joe Mantello. Richard Greenberg (Take Me Out, Three Days of Rain) was to have supplied a revised book, and there was talk that the amazing Stockard Channing might be cast as well. Then the New York Times reported that producer Marc Platt had announced that the production had been postponed because of "personal and professional reasons."

Now it appears that there's still hope of seeing Pal Joey this season. The Roundabout Theater is reportedly interested in adding Pal Joey to its season. When I renewed my subscription, the only musical then planned was a Broadway transfer of the terrific London production of Sunday in the Park with George, but the guy on the phone hinted that there would probably be another musical added, although he wouldn't say what was in the works.

Pal Joey is one of the seminal works of the American musical theater. It's certainly one of Rodgers and Hart's finest scores, but it's also an important show in the progression toward serious subject matter and verisimilitude on the musical stage. It also represents one of the first uses of the "anti-hero": a leading character who's somewhat less than heroic.

The show certainly has its flaws, but then so did most of the shows of the time. Very few receive revivals, and when they do, it's with significantly revised books. (One notable exception: Oklahoma!) When I cover Pal Joey in my Boston Conservatory course, I always point out the inconsistency of Joey singing "I Could Write a Book." It's a beautiful song, but the lyric doesn't really work for Joey:

If they asked me, I could write a book About the way you walk and whisper and look.
I could write a preface on how we metSo the world would never forget.

Joey's never even read a book in his life, and he certainly wouldn't know what a "preface" was. And even if he did, the character doesn't think in terms of books, so it's totally wrong. It's a great example of the fact that shows of the time weren't completely integrated. Sometimes the composer/lyricists would include songs that they intended to be hits rather than songs that fit the characters or advanced the plot. Of course, Richard Rodgers would go on to help change all that in his partnership with Oscar Hammerstein.

Anyway, it would be great if the Roundabout could bring this admittedly flawed but nonetheless important and entertaining show back to Broadway.

August 01, 2007

As I've stated or implied many times in previous posts, I'm thrilled that the movie-musical genre has made a comeback. Film musicals pretty much disappeared during the 80s and 90s, except for the occasional painful misstep like A Chorus Line or Newsies.

Now movie musicals are back with a vengeance. The problem is, there's no one left alive who really knows how to execute one well. Take, for instance, Hairspray. Director/choreographer Adam Shankman does a terrific job with the latter,
but an awkward and unconvincing job on the former.

But Shankman isn't alone in his relative ineptitude. Bill Condon didn't fair much better with Dreamgirls, although it was certainly a valiant attempt. Rob
Marshall did an OK job with Chicago, although it would have been great to see what Bob Fosse could have done with it. Susan Stroman certainly made a mess ofThe Producers. And the less said about Chris
Columbus and Rent, the better. (Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way: Columbus hasn't directed a film since.)

For me, nothing will ever replace John Waters' original "Hairspray" movie, but I certainly found the stage version of Hairsprayentertaining. The score by Marc Shamain and Scott Wittman is fun and upbeat, although it certainly has its share of clunkers ("It Takes Two," "Cooties," "Miss Baltimore Crabs," "Without Love"). Overall, the show made me realize what a great show The Producers is. I had been mildly underwhelmed when I saw The Producers in previews, and was truly astonished when the show received such a rhapsodic reception. But seeing Hairspray made me realize how truly well crafted The Producers really is.

Anyway, back to the movie version of Hairspray. The real story here is the cast, and I have to say that based on the previews, I wasn't looking forward to seeing John Travolta as Edna Turnblad. But he grew on me. A little. Once I got past the fact that he shouldn't have been playing the part -- at all -- I sort of settled in and went with the flow. Not for a second did I ever believe he was anyone else but John Travolta, but I was eventually able to move on and consider the rest of the cast in turn.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Velma von Tussle sharp and funny. She's really held up well over the years, and it's nice to see her in a part that's worthy of her considerable talents. (As opposed to, say, Grease 2. Yeesh.) Christopher Walken as Wilbur Turnblad was an old pro, revealing his stage training and musical-comedy background. I was pleased to see that Queen Latifah as Motormouth Maybelle was much better than she was in Chicago. I didn't believe her for a second as Mama Morton, but she wasn't nearly as wooden as Motormouth, and actually seemed to be having a good time.

Nikki Blonski as Tracy Turnblad was downright adorable and very appealing. James Marsden as Corny Collins was one of the best things in the entire movie. He was a very natural screen presence, a great voice, and he's a terrific dancer, too. He was one of the few people on screen who really seemed to get what the movie was about. One major discovery for me was Elijah Kelly as Seaweed, another natural. Kelley has this amazing energy, despite some awkward camera angles during his big number, "Run and Tell That."

Three members of the cast stood out for me as being sorely miscast. The least egregious was Brittany Snow as Amber, who was fine but unremarkable. Amanda Bynes was practically nonexistent as Penny Pingleton. She had no presence, no sparkle, no nothing. Plus she's an awkward dancer. It's a shame, because Penny could have been a real stand-out role, as the wonderful Kerry Butler made it on Broadway. Another disappointment was Zac Efron as Link Larken. Efron lacks the requisite charisma for Link, although it really seemed he was working hard at it, which of course is exactly how to make sure it won't happen. He wasn't arresting, he was just blandly cute. No wonder he's a Disney favorite.

Special shout out to my former student Hayley Podschun on her film debut as Tammy. Sweetheart, you were sensational! I couldn't take my eyes off you, and not just because I was looking for you in every number. You're off to a terrific start, and I wish you nothing but the best.